The state Senate Judiciary
Committee approved the so-called Steven Tyler Act after the stars
testified at a hearing, saying they want to fiercely protect the little
privacy they have as public figures.

The bill would give people
power to sue others who take photos or video of their private lives in
an offensive way, such as using telephoto lenses or other advanced
equipment to record them on their private properties.

Tyler said
he asked Sen. Kalani English to introduce the measure after paparazzi
took a photo of Tyler and his girlfriend in his home, and it was
published by a national magazine as part of a report saying the two were
getting married.

The
Aerosmith frontman and former "American Idol" judge says his kids don't
want to go out with him in Hawaii because of the threat of
photographers who sometimes get on boats to take photos of him from the
ocean.

"That's what they do, they are just constantly taking from us," Tyler said.

Fleetwood,
the drummer from Fleetwood Mac, says he's gotten used to the constant
attention but realizes that it's a "grim reality."

"The islands shouldn't represent this to people coming here," Fleetwood said.

Tyler addressed Hawaii senators briefly during a general session following the hearing and received applause from lawmakers.

During
the hearing, Senate judiciary committee chair Clayton Hee scrapped the
bill's original contents — which were largely drafted by Tyler's lawyer —
and replaced them with language from a related California statute.

The
California law was originally passed in 1998 in response to the death
of Princess Diana, then amended in 2009 to permit lawsuits against media
outlets that pay for and make first use of material they knew was
improperly obtained. In addition to provisions against advanced
equipment, the California measure has penalties for reckless behavior
while attempting to get photos or video of a celebrity.

Senators
also added an amendment to exempt law enforcement authorities, who use
telephoto lenses and other such equipment during investigations.

Hee said he wants to move the bill straight to the Senate floor and to the House "in deference and in agreement with" Tyler.

Tyler
said he was largely satisfied with the amendments. His lawyer, Dina
LaPolt, agreed immediately after the hearing but said she planned to go
over the changes more fully.

English says the bill is necessary to protect privacy in the digital age.

He says that while the constitution protects news publishing, it doesn't protect news gathering.

Stirling Morita, president of the Hawaii chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, said he disagrees.

He says even with the bill's amendments, it's still too vague.

"You have to be pretty definite to limit First Amendment rights," Morita said.

The
bill was also opposed by the National Press Photographers Association,
which submitted testimony on behalf of the Society of Professional
Journalists, the Associated Press Media Editors and the American Society
of News Editors, among other media groups.

More than two-thirds
of the state Senate co-sponsored the measure. Britney Spears and Avril
Lavigne were among more than a dozen celebrities who submitted testimony
supporting the bill along with the rockers.

The stars say
paparazzi have made simple activities like cooking with family and
sunbathing elusive luxuries and the bill would give them peace of mind.

Tyler
said stars today are pestered much worse than previous generations
given modern technology and lucrative paydays for paparazzi.

The
unusual hearing packed a conference room in the Hawaii Capitol, and
generated buzz from state staffers who captured cellphone pictures of
Tyler and Fleetwood, then compared snapshots in the hallways after the
hearing.

Cameras clicked excitedly when the musicians walked into a room packed with lawmakers, staffers, media and other onlookers.

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.

Leave a comment

Name:

Comment:

Please login to leave a comment.

dlum003wrote:

As quirky and sometimes bufoonish as Steven Tyler may be perceived by the public, he is a highly intelligent and thoughtful man. As big fan as I am of his, George Harrison (RIP), Kelsey Grammer, Todd Rundgren, or any other celebrity that lives in the islands, I would never dream of invading their privacy. These empty soul parasites that follow them around need to get an honest occupation, and have some personal DECENCY and RESPECT for themselves and others who actually made something of their lives. Imua Steven, kick their okoles, you have the public's support all the way!!!

on February 7,2013 | 04:57PM

Name:

Comment:

Naloboywrote:

No he doesn't have he public's support all the way. Can you read?

on February 8,2013 | 03:21PM

Name:

Comment:

Tony96822wrote:

Funny, when Rundgren's kids went to Mid-Pac, nobody even cared who he was or what he did. they just wanted to see the kids hit the ball.

on February 7,2013 | 05:41PM

Name:

Comment:

SomebodyElsewrote:

It's all good, they should have their privacy. I just hope the production crews respect the public when they're working in private our neighborhoods during our private time.

on February 7,2013 | 07:16PM

Name:

Comment:

alliewrote:

sort of a nothing bill for a do-nothing legislature

on February 8,2013 | 10:18AM

Name:

Comment:

GONEGOLFINwrote:

Allie, you have finally made a statement that rings true. Thank you!

on February 8,2013 | 02:28PM

Name:

Comment:

honopicwrote:

Oh, man! Don't encourage her! It will only give her an excuse to keep commenting just to see her name in print.

on February 8,2013 | 07:25PM

Name:

Comment:

AmbienDazewrote:

agree, hon.

on February 8,2013 | 09:04PM

Name:

Comment:

GorillaSmithwrote:

This story sounds about as believable as the Manti T'eo girlfriend saga. There's no way even our pathetic legislature could really be wasting time on this nonsense. I think the S-A is playing a little practical joke on us. All right; you've had your fun. Let's get back to work.

on February 7,2013 | 09:44PM

Name:

Comment:

Wonderful_Worldwrote:

I agree. If it's not about assessing fees or raising taxes it's about nonsense & they get PAID for this!

on February 8,2013 | 07:07AM

Name:

Comment:

alliewrote:

agree

on February 8,2013 | 10:18AM

Name:

Comment:

honopicwrote:

DIS-agree. Just 4 u, allie.

on February 8,2013 | 07:25PM

Name:

Comment:

AmbienDazewrote:

honopic, agree with you... but you forgot the "hon" for emphasis.

on February 8,2013 | 09:06PM

Name:

Comment:

st1dwrote:

well, at least photographers can still rent helicopters and planes for fly-over surveillance and photography. sick to think someone can put your home under telephoto surveillance to photograph your private moments and family life. you don't have to be a celeb to want to protect your privacy.

on February 7,2013 | 10:28PM

Name:

Comment:

ellinaskyrtwrote:

It sounds like if I were at the beach and taking a picture of my little cousins playing on the sand and Grace Park happened to walk into the shot, she could have me prosecuted under this proposed law. This "Steven Tyler" law is just pandering to the rich and famous. If they want to be treated like normal people and be able to live normal lives without being bothered by paparazzi, they should depend on the normal laws that normal people rely on as protection from stalking.

on February 8,2013 | 06:55AM

Name:

Comment:

onevoice82wrote:

Do you realize how unlikely your statement is? Come on ellin you have to have deeper thoughts than that!

on February 8,2013 | 09:08AM

Name:

Comment:

ellinaskyrtwrote:

It doesn't take deep thoughts to understand this simple, fair and correct concept: Resources should be allotted to enforce and strengthen already existing stalking laws that are applicable to even the most humble, ordinary person in Hawaii. We shouldn't be wasting time, taxpayer money and manpower to draft, pass and enforce a special law for the rich and famous.

on February 8,2013 | 10:42AM

Name:

Comment:

Muzzy996wrote:

The way it sounds while undeniably it helps celebs it's written generally enough that it could apply to the most humble, ordinary person. Say for example some perv sits on a beach somewhere waiting with a zoom lens for a woman to be in an unflattering position in her bikini and then shoots that shot. This would be in stark contrast to someone taking general landscape shots in the same area at the same moment, the distinction being that one was targeting a specific person vs someone mistakenly catching said unflattering momement in a photograph for which the intent was to capture something else. The point is, this protection can apply to everyone, not just celebs.

on February 8,2013 | 11:20AM

Name:

Comment:

ellinaskyrtwrote:

Muzzy996: I'd actually support a bill that protects women in the situation you described. However, the Steven Tyler bill doesn't cover that situation. Text of the bill is here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/SB465_.pdf

on February 8,2013 | 12:29PM

Name:

Comment:

GONEGOLFINwrote:

Why dont you take it 1 step futher: Women, between the ages of 18-25, blonde hair, blue eyes, live in Hawaii Kai, and not currently involved in a relationship with a goat. Ellin, please-dont exclude people based on their gender, or are we going back in time?

on February 8,2013 | 02:31PM

Name:

Comment:

Eradicationwrote:

Does this law also apply to private investigators hired to gather photos for a disgruntled husband/ wife/GF or BF or business partner/employer, etc.? If so, I'm all for it. If it does apply then no, it is not a law just for the rich folks.

on February 8,2013 | 06:13PM

Name:

Comment:

onevoice82wrote:

I was referring to your accidental photo scenario! Stalking laws require repeat offenses by the same person within a specific time frame. It doesn't fit within this so called Journalism paparazzi nonsense.

on February 8,2013 | 08:50PM

Name:

Comment:

Maneki_Nekowrote:

Submitting form letters from other (cough) celebrities is not compelling testimony. Getting some supporters to post here is not compelling either. Legislators - look to the words of the proposed law which, since it lacks the trespass provisions of the California model, is over reaching. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill to curry favor with the Hollywood set. If it ain't broke, don't be making laws to fix it.

on February 8,2013 | 07:06AM

Name:

Comment:

AmbienDazewrote:

two paws up.

on February 8,2013 | 09:10PM

Name:

Comment:

NuuanuMamawrote:

It would be wonderful if Hawaii became a sanctuary for everybody that wanted to have a nice private vacation/life. The fact that someone could shoot photos of you at home via a telescopic lens and then post them in national media is an invasion of privacy and the sanctity of home. I hope this law applies to anyone that is being stalked, celebrity or not.

on February 8,2013 | 07:29AM

Name:

Comment:

Terii_Keliiwrote:

AMEN!

on February 8,2013 | 07:40AM

Name:

Comment:

Mikilaiwrote:

Agree

on February 8,2013 | 07:55AM

Name:

Comment:

onevoice82wrote:

Like

on February 8,2013 | 09:09AM

Name:

Comment:

ThinkOutLoudwrote:

So more taxpayer dollars will tie up Hawaii's law enforcement and Hawaii's courts with celebrity paparazzi protection. Get a body guard. Rich & famous star struck legislators... Hello. . .I bet they did not even vote for you.

on February 8,2013 | 07:37AM

Name:

Comment:

Kuokoawrote:

Wow, he sure is getting publicity and yet he wants to be left alone?

on February 8,2013 | 07:47AM

Name:

Comment:

lowtone123wrote:

The benefit I see to passage of this bill would be celebrities coming here to live and visit and feel comfortable knowing that they will be protected from paparazzi.

on February 8,2013 | 07:50AM

Name:

Comment:

Mikilaiwrote:

"like"

on February 8,2013 | 07:56AM

Name:

Comment:

loquaciousonewrote:

I have a problem with "celebrities" who make their fortunes by being a public figure expecting taxpayers to shell out for protecting their privacy.

on February 8,2013 | 09:00AM

Name:

Comment:

onevoice82wrote:

I dont have a problem with the taxes they pay on thier income!

on February 8,2013 | 09:10AM

Name:

Comment:

turbolinkwrote:

If taxes are paid to Hawaii, agree. However, these are vacation homes, property tax might be it.

on February 8,2013 | 03:40PM

Name:

Comment:

Maneki_Nekowrote:

Well, Tyler did buy a multi-million dollar house in Kalani's district.

on February 8,2013 | 12:01PM

Name:

Comment:

nodaddynotthebeltwrote:

I totally disagree with this legislation. It opens up a lot of legal problems that should not be. Celebrities know what they are in for when they enter the profession that they go into. Mr. Tyler loves the limelight and it can be shown in the fact that he even made a cameo on American Idol playing the role of a contestant. You could see that he loved the attention. Now, he comes to Hawaii and expects to change the whole rule of celebrity status. In other words, he wants the cake and eat it, too. If this legislation is meant to bring in celebrities to Hawaii, it fails because they are not the biggest source of revenue as far as tourists are concerned. Now that taxes have gone up in California on the rich they are considering moving out of the state. The rich celebrities are now looking for another option and Hawaii rife with taxes is still an option due to the weather and beaches. Everyone has a right to privacy but to add this to the whole mix just goes against all reason. Now, you and I, will be paying more to "protect" these celebrities. And I mean our taxes will be used to enforce laws that give special treatment to celebrities. Our already stretched resources within the police department and court system will be utilized by these celebrities. In other words, our police officers will be used as "body guards" by celebrities like Mr. Tyler who can now ultimately call on our officers to deal with those who capture photos of videos of celebrities walking down the beach or just simply laying around the sand. There were no real problems when it came photographing celebrities before. Now we have an icon who just happens to wield a lot of power, obviously, who can change the whole set of rules and wreak havoc on the whole court system. And our star-struck legislators are pandering to this celebrity. Instead of legislating laws that just gives special treatment to celebrities, we should be toughening up stalking laws. Now, if these photographers follow the celebrities home and stalk them they will be handled with severe penalties.

on February 8,2013 | 09:48AM

Name:

Comment:

kiheilocalwrote:

Though I can Tylers point...it doesnt really make sense when the home he bought is within yards of a very public, populated, popular snorkel site. Most people who value privacy would take measures to insure privacy like larger lots, less populated areas etc. He also blares his music real loud so people snorkeling get to hear it. He has less privacy in that spot than 90% of the population of Maui just because of the location.

on February 8,2013 | 10:43AM

Name:

Comment:

MakaniKaiwrote:

Excellent post "nodaddy......." I agree 100%. Happy Aloha Friday!

on February 8,2013 | 01:44PM

Name:

Comment:

sluggahwrote:

To quote Shakespeare, "Methinks they doth protest too much." These guys just don't want UNFLATTERING pics taken of them. As celebs, they increase their marketability with increased coverage. What a load of baloney this law is. They should pay for goons like Oprah does, they're just too cheap.

on February 8,2013 | 04:44PM

Name:

Comment:

sadhugeorgewrote:

We in Lahaina are trying to have Mic Fleetwood turn down his late night music blaring from the roof of his tourist trap. And he demands respect?

on February 8,2013 | 10:03AM

Name:

Comment:

akuboatcaptainwrote:

Celebrities are celebrities when they are in the public realm, laws are more laxed regarding how the media can approach them. But when they are in leisure in their private domains, they should be afforded the same constitutional right to privacy like any average citizen. These people have given much of themselves, their time, and their talents for the public's enjoyment, the least we can do is respect their privacy.

on February 8,2013 | 10:46AM

Name:

Comment:

4watitsworthwrote:

Great comment aku.

on February 8,2013 | 11:50AM

Name:

Comment:

Skylerwrote:

Agreed.

on February 8,2013 | 03:06PM

Name:

Comment:

lee1957wrote:

Does the accompanying photo pass muster with the propsed legislation?

on February 8,2013 | 10:59AM

Name:

Comment:

honuponowrote:

It's a good law. There's is nothing good from paparazzi stalking anyone trying to enjoy Hawai'i and having some private time.

on February 8,2013 | 11:08AM

Name:

Comment:

Mythmanwrote:

Add language to the bill: any sound that passes the boundary line of the property of the celebrity is an invitation of the celebrity to anyone who would follow the sound and use it to trace back to its origins and who may therefore use sight, a photograph, to capture a photograph of the origin of the sound. In other words, sight and sound are equal when it comes to the public. Get it?

on February 8,2013 | 11:30AM

Name:

Comment:

fairgame947wrote:

They are due privacy as any of us are, but - sorry their make their millions of dollars because of us, too.

on February 8,2013 | 11:32AM

Name:

Comment:

9ronbozwrote:

nonsense! not on my dime!

on February 8,2013 | 11:55AM

Name:

Comment:

juscastingwrote:

How about some concerts? FleetwoodMac with Stevie Nicks, den maybe Hawaii will support the bill!

on February 8,2013 | 12:02PM

Name:

Comment:

Maneki_Nekowrote:

I can get you Stevie Wonder. It'll cost you about $200k.

on February 8,2013 | 04:10PM

Name:

Comment:

Naloboywrote:

Too bad our moronic legislators are willing to have their heads turned by a few entertainment stars and create an unconstitutional law. The problems these "stars" are most concerned about already are illegal under privacy laws. You can't take the kind of picture Steven Tyler talked about and do it legally. Yes you can take photos from a sidewalk, beach or other public place, but it already is illegal to use zoom into a home or other private place where the person being photographed would normally expect to have privacy. Too bad our elected officials would rather slobber over a few has-been rock stars than take proper care of the rest of us.

on February 8,2013 | 01:05PM

Name:

Comment:

st1dwrote:

they can't even testify without people in the audience snapping away with their phone cameras.

on February 8,2013 | 01:28PM

Name:

Comment:

st1dwrote:

that is a smart lawyer.

on February 8,2013 | 01:41PM

Name:

Comment:

MakaniKaiwrote:

Reality check Steven and Mick – this is not Cali, you choose to come to Hawaii and when you arrive your pests (paparazzi) follow. Please do not impose upon the good people of Hawaii by distracting our Ledge. Bruddahs OBTW nevah even knew you stay in the Nei, is this part of bringing attention to yourselves? Just look at the celebs that submitted testimony –Avril????Who, and Britney “I like be all over the press” Spears. Attention Hawaii Ledge focus on the people of the Nei, K! Happy Aloha Friday.

on February 8,2013 | 01:42PM

Name:

Comment:

Maneki_Nekowrote:

Britney hates all the attention. That's why she can't remember for keep on her panties when exiting cars at star-studded events.

on February 8,2013 | 04:12PM

Name:

Comment:

AmbienDazewrote:

yeah, maneki, i saw that one, too. shaving red spots.

on February 8,2013 | 09:19PM

Name:

Comment:

entrknwrote:

Senator English has an interesting point that the constitution protects news publishing but not news gathering, and it does protect a person's right to privacy.

on February 8,2013 | 01:53PM

Name:

Comment:

hanoz808wrote:

right on

on February 8,2013 | 02:27PM

Name:

Comment:

inversewrote:

As someone else mentioned with all the money these celebs have, hire some bodyguards whose sole purpose to run interference between the celebs and photogs. Nothing physical or against the law but just enough to make trouble to overly pesky photogs and ruin their pictures.

on February 8,2013 | 03:36PM

Name:

Comment:

turbolinkwrote:

We have had many celebrities live on most all islands for many years. With a couple exceptions, I don't recall this to be a problem. I also don't recall too many saying I'm a celebrity and therefore require special attention and protection. Just by making this a public issue, aren't they attracting public attention? Isn't using their celebrity to say we want our privacy a contradiction? And isn't our legislature giving them a platform to exploit a joke in itself?

on February 8,2013 | 03:46PM

Name:

Comment:

HD36wrote:

We now have 75,000 pages of rules and regulations.

on February 8,2013 | 04:48PM

Name:

Comment:

turbolinkwrote:

Would this apply to the Obamas when they are on island?

on February 8,2013 | 04:53PM

Name:

Comment:

st1dwrote:

this bill will pass. did you see the love fest for steve and mick and the competition among legislators to be photographed with them?

on February 8,2013 | 06:13PM

Name:

Comment:

Bdpapawrote:

Gimme a break! These people deserve what every tax paying citizen deserves, nothing more nothing less. Vote No!